[Cbr2021] Hybrid conference versus online only justification

Wed Feb 24 16:56:39 AEDT 2021

Hi Miles,

Just from my perspective, I’d like to aim for the full cross product, but am willing to accept the in-person event with the streaming option or anything in between. What I’d note is that there were a lot of up sides to the online conference around having a discussion platform, Q&A, embedded streaming, etc that would make it better for both an in person attendee and a remote attendee. Where we land on that spectrum, is to me, a later conversation that is better informed by research, lived experience from this years team, etc.

Thanks
James

> On 24 Feb 2021, at 16:13, Miles Goodhew via CBR2021 <cbr2021 at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> Chad,
>    Thanks for that. There are a lot of good points in there and I really appreciate the work you've put into it.
>    One of the things we were going to try and thrash-through at tonight's meeting is "what would a hybrid conference look like?" As I see it there's three basic options:
> * An essentially "in-person" event with an online streaming option added on (However that's budgeted) - I think this is what both you and Paul have put cases for (Correct me if I'm wrong). This would mean it's "actually something to do with Canberra".
> * An online conference with a bunch of physical "watch parties" - This is what I've been trying to describe and define on and off. I'm not wedded to this concept (far from it) - I just think it needs to be at least considered as a contrast. This option really precludes the conference having anything Canberra specific in it.
> * Some full cross-product of [(online, offline) * (speaker, attendee, team)]. This is a "technical possibility", but there's a lot of undefined extra work there. There's also got to be a net increase of budget and/or ticket cost for less immediately perceived benefit to attendees. You've essentially got to pay full price for in-person venue and streaming infrastructure (+ about the same amount of organisation/sessions/team costs). We'd have to pay for this with the same pool of ticket and sponsorship money (So it's more of a financial challenge). This sounds like a really risky and complicated option to me (But it'd be amazing if it worked).
> 
> Looking forward to talking it all through tonight (Have a look at the meeting notes doc and update/add anything you think is needed).
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> M0les.
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 08:33, Matthew Chadwick via CBR2021 <cbr2021 at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> From what I can tell, there are 3 major arguments that have been put forward.
>> 
>> 1. The coronavirus
>> 
>> I understand the concern around the coronavirus, however things are looking reasonably well under control presently. There is currently no reason we cannot expect things will be more under control in 10 months from now. A hybrid conference mitigates this risk as effectively as an online only conference by taking advantage of the best elements of both conference styles.
>> 
>> Part of the success of this years LCA can be attributed to the fact that there was a conference at all during uncertain times. Now that Australia is moving towards something resembling normal, we should start to consider models that worked effectively when things were normal. This is already evident by other conferences that are using the in person model again, I will be attending 2 such conferences shortly (6 March - Crickeycon in Brisbane and 9-10 April - B-Sides in Canberra). It is worth noting that these events sold out (with one re-opening ticket sales after the sell out), I’ll be reaching out to these event organisers after their events for a chat.
>> 
>> There are a number of people who will not attend an in person conference either because they are unable to or do not want to. There are a number of people who are fatigued by the number of virtual conferences and are anxious to meet again face to face and network. The hybrid approach satisfies both groups, the in person/online only approaches satisfy one group at the detriment of the other. While the theme of this years conference doesn’t have to be themed “community", this conference is and always has been about the community and a hybrid approach extends our reach greatly.
>> 
>> To address the final concern about COVID19, let's assume that something does go wrong in 6 months time and it is no longer safe to commit to the in person component of the conference. A hybrid approach means we can scale up the online component and still go forward. If we instead commit to an online only conference, we lose the opportunity to host an in person conference entirely.
>> 
>> 2. The budget & scheduling
>> 
>> The environment we are in today is very different to that of 2 years ago, the budget absolutely needs to be redone regardless of the path forward.
>> 
>> I agree that we need to start making decisions however to suggest that we need to be making these decisions within 1-2 months for the speakers is not accurate. I have provided a small table below which outlines milestones for both the In Person and Online variants of the conference. Call for sessions did not open until the end of July at the earliest and didn’t close until the 13th of November at the latest. Tickets and prices are also absolutely an item to discuss however sales aren’t opened until early October at the earliest. We have time to make these decisions.
>> 
>> Milestone
>> In person (based on LCA2020)
>> Online (based on LCA2021)
>> Call for sessions opened
>> 24 Jul 2019
>> 15 Oct 2020
>> Call for sessions extended
>> 28 Jul 2019
>> 7 Nov 2020
>> Call for sessions closed
>> 11 Aug 2019
>> 13 Nov 2020
>> Ticket sales opened
>> 3 Oct 2019
>> 24 Nov 2020
>> Miniconfs announced
>> 17 Oct 2019
>> 24 Nov 2020
>> Conference schedule available
>> 23 Oct 2019
>> 3 Dec 2020
>> Keynote 1 announced
>> 22 Nov 2019
>> 3 Dec 2020
>> Financial assistance available
>> 2 Dec 2019
>> 4 Jan 2021
>> Keynote 2 announced
>> 6 Dec 2019
>> 15 Dec 2020
>> Keynote 3 announced
>> 17 Dec 2019
>> 22 Dec 2020
>> Keynote 4 announced
>> 4 Jan 2020
>> Not applicable
>> Table 1. In person and online conference milestone comparison.
>> 
>> "It's important to put on an LCA and it's important to LA that it doesn't make a huge loss” - I agree Rob, and this is what worries me about the online only model. It worked well during uncertain times but it is not the right model for how 2022 looks to be shaping up. If we host an online only conference I am afraid the conference will fail or be a shadow of its former self. I believe it will look undesirable compared to other conferences that are returning to a physical location and attendance will go down. This will affect our budget.
>> 
>> Given that Crickeycon and B-Sides (in person conferences - with limited or no online component when compared to lca2021) both sold out I cannot see how hosting a hybrid conference, which can only serve to increase the number of participants, would have any trouble breaking even, in fact I would expect it would do well. I am of the view that marketing and sponsorship opportunities are generally greater for in person conferences than online ones, so it stands to reason that a hybrid conference will provide more opportunities still.
>> 
>> 3. The workload
>> 
>> A concern appears to be that a hybrid conference will be significantly harder than an online only or in person only conference, I am not convinced. There is a lot of cross over between the two types of conferences. Scheduling will be the same. Streaming/recording may be easier due to the ability to use a physical location for the conference. The challenge of having to manage volunteers in physically distinct locations will be reduced greatly by having the ability to collaborate and work together in person. Meanwhile, LCA2021 has demonstrated that some of the volunteer functions could probably be done from the other side of the planet even with a physical conference room (and it will be easier than it was online only). Why aren’t we leveraging our online experience to enhance the physical conference and deliver the best of both worlds to our domestic (predominantly in-person) and overseas (predominantly remote) audiences and speakers.
>> 
>> There will certainly be unique challenges that we can (and should) rise to, however there are many aspects of the online conference that are simply an extension of a traditional in person conference. Every LCA to date has done something better than the last and the hybrid approach is how we can improve upon last years experience. I would argue that it is a natural evolution of LCA and that an online only conference would simply stifle progress. It is inevitable.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Chad.
>> 
>>> On 23 Feb 2021, at 8:29 am, Rob Bolin via CBR2021 <cbr2021 at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi James,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for that question.  My position on online-only is based on:
>>> 
>>> *  While I recognise that vaccines are rolling out around the world, I feel there is still too much uncertainty about what could happen.  Bear in mind that there are currently 3 recognised covid mutations and the vaccine is confirmed to be effective against only 1 (the other 2 are currently uncertain).  There may be others that appear between now and January. This was certainly the stated position of Norman Swan on ABC24 moments ago (as I write this).
>>> 
>>> *  Approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of usual attendees and probably around half of speakers are international.  Assuming that quarantine is still in effect (and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be at this stage), attendance could result in 5 weeks out of the workplace for a 1 week conference (2 weeks quarantine coming into Australia, 1 week of LCA and 2 weeks quarantine returning home).  This also assumes that lock downs won't be happening between Australian states
>>> 
>>> *  While LCA is 10 months away, speakers will need to put forward proposals for papers in a month or two.  I believe that the 5 week period above will weigh heavily on international speakers' decisions to put forward proposals, reducing proposals to mostly Australian speakers.  Not that we don't have an outstanding crop of Australian developers, but as conference organisers, we want the best of the best talks.
>>> 
>>> *  Assuming that we utilise technology to remove the issues with quarantine and international travel, and stream international speakers into the venue, we all agree that we will need to maintain an online presence even for a face to face conference.  Given the success of this year's LCA, I suspect that quite a number of the potential attendees would still opt for streaming the conference, rather than attending in person.  Personally, I know I would (though I will admit to being an avowed introvert).
>>> 
>>> *  The budget, as initially approved by LA, was built around an attendance of approximately 570 attendees to break even.  One third of these were expected to be professionals, which contributed roughly 60% of the delegate contribution to the budget.  Given uncertainty and potentially 5 weeks out of the office, I doubt many bosses would be happy for these professionals to attend in person, despite the wishes of the staff member (I'm happy to be corrected about this, if any one wants to ask their boss now).
>>> 
>>> *  Given the budget issue above, we would need to adjust the budget (I believe Neill is on to this now), but we would need to be careful not to boost the online ticket price to subsidise the in-person price, which will generate push back - after all, the face to face has social activities that online wouldn't participate in (even if we don't have any).
>>> 
>>> *  Another point about the budget, I believe that if given the option of streaming verses attendance in person, hobbyists may also opt for the cheaper option (I certainly would).  After all, we (hobbyists) don't have a corporate sponsor that will send us along, so we have to find the conference fee plus accommodation, travel and food.  Personally, that's a major reason why I volunteer as many years as I can - free entry into the conference and I don't mind helping out.
>>> 
>>> *  A hybrid model introduces additional issues and work versus a face to face only or online only conference.  From past experience, a face to face conference is a lot of work (which we all signed on for, so I was happy to do it), however Sae Ra and Joel advise that there are new and different challenges inherent in an online conference.  What is currently being proposed actually combines both.  Are we up for an increase in work load?  For a start, we would need volunteers in both the online and real world spheres.  Granted some of their work, I believe, was due to the reduced time frame they were working with, compared to our 10-ish month time frame, I think Sae Ra and Joel would be better placed to explain their workload at the Wednesday meeting.
>>> 
>>> *  Finally, one of the reasons put forward to go for a hybrid model is that our theme is "Community", and face to face interaction is an important part of building a community. As I have pointed out before, *we* chose "Community" and we have only announced that to LA, not the wider community.  As such, there is nothing stopping us from coming up with a different theme, or re-define it to something like "Open Source supporting Community in Difficult Times", which would include last year's fires in addition to the current pandemic.
>>> 
>>> I am certainly disappointed that I can't host the face to face conference that I wanted to hold when I first started agitating after LCA2018, but I have to be realistic - It's important to put on an LCA and it's important to LA that it doesn't make a huge loss (which I suspect would happen if we held the hybrid version).
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Rob
>>> 
>>>> On 22/2/21 9:14 pm, James Iseppi wrote:
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>> While I didn’t attend the entire meeting, from what I gathered the majority of the people attending wanted to do a Hybrid conference, while their were only two (yourself included) that said that we should not. From that perspective, I think we as the presumptive team need some convincing that what LA and yourself are proposing (an online only event) is something we want to run.
>>>> While I appreciate that LA have to manage the risks around losing money from a failed conference (no matter the format), I think we need some actual arguments that an online conference is easier, less resource intensive, more likely to succeed, etc when compared to a F2F/Hybrid event. Whatever the LCA2021 team are able to share about what they did, how well it worked, the challenges they faced, the number of people hours it took to deliver, etc before our meeting on Wednesday would be very helpful in informing our understanding of what an online only event entails and would allow us to more reasonably respond to the question being posed.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> James
>>>>> On 22 Feb 2021, at 20:11, Rob Bolin via CBR2021 <cbr2021 at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Miles, Neill and I have just met with Sae Ra and Joel on our way forward.  Sae Ra has requested that the team put forward, in writing, some good reasons why we should go ahead with a hybrid model, to be forwarded to LA.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To be honest, I can't really think of any good reasons why we should (as I expressed in our meeting), so can I ask those that expressed a preference for Hybrid over online-only please provide a couple of paragraphs why we should go ahead with the Hybrid model.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry to be brutally frank, but if I don't get any responses, the LA will make their decision based on available information which, most likely, will be to go ahead with an online only.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rob
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CBR2021 mailing list
>>>>> CBR2021 at lists.linux.org.au
>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/cbr2021
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CBR2021 mailing list
>>> CBR2021 at lists.linux.org.au
>>> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/cbr2021
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CBR2021 mailing list
>> CBR2021 at lists.linux.org.au
>> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/cbr2021
> 
> 
> -- 
> Miles Goodhew
> Miles at m0les.com
> _______________________________________________
> CBR2021 mailing list
> CBR2021 at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/cbr2021
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/cbr2021/attachments/20210224/74ea7454/attachment-0001.html>